Now that Ektachrome is back.. (Page 4): i guess it depends on how you define "better quality". Before I switched to digital, I determined that a 3000x2000 scan has at least as much...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

speters wrote:

I just like film better, it is more fun to use and the image quality is higher than digital!

i guess it depends on how you define "better quality". Before I switched to digital, I determined that a 3000x2000 scan has at least as much detail as a Kodachrome 25 slide. Since switching to digital, I've determined that images taken with my 16MP DSLR have more detail than I ever got using slide film, Ektachrome or Kodachrome, with the same lens.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

whitewolfowner wrote:

Very well said and nothing more to the truth. Very few people had anything past an instamatic camera; the most advanced amateurs had simple rangefinders because you had to know what you were doing to use them and get a decent photo. Today anyone can buy an DSLR, take it out of the box and shoot.

i don't understand where these comments come from. I am most certainly an amateur; I used SLR's from 1979 until I switched to DSLR's in 2006 {27 years later}. I had a number of friends who used SLR's, but switched to either point-and-shoot or to smart phones when the digital age arrived.

whitewolfowner

rehess wrote:

i guess it depends on how you define "better quality". Before I switched to digital, I determined that a 3000x2000 scan has at least as much detail as a Kodachrome 25 slide. Since switching to digital, I've determined that images taken with my 16MP DSLR have more detail than I ever got using slide film, Ektachrome or Kodachrome, with the same lens.

What kind of camera and lens did you use for film. Negative film had more detail than slide film but still......

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

whitewolfowner wrote:

What kind of camera and lens did you use for film. Negative film had more detail than slide film but still......

I had a Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 lens mounted on a Pentax Super Program SLR loaded with Kodachrome 25, which was always known for providing more detail than any Ektachrome. My more recent experience was with that same lens mounted on a Pentax K-30.

whitewolfowner

rehess wrote:

I had a Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 lens mounted on a Pentax Super Program SLR loaded with Kodachrome 25, which was always known for providing more detail than any Ektachrome. My more recent experience was with that same lens mounted on a Pentax K-30.

And how are you judging the slides; if on a computer, you have digitized them and judging them unfairly.

nikon_jon Loc: Northeast Arkansas

If you are just learning photography, film is good. The pressure of expense makes you think about each shot before it is taken. Greatly reduces 'spray and pray' approach.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

whitewolfowner wrote:

And how are you judging the slides; if on a computer, you have digitized them and judging them unfairly.

Digitized image is all I care about now. I no longer have a projector, since my parallel projector / computer tests convinced me that scanned images were at least as good as slide originals.

nikon_jon wrote:

If you are just learning photography, film is good. The pressure of expense makes you think about each shot before it is taken. Greatly reduces 'spray and pray' approach.

Yes, I learned good deliberate habits using film when my subconscious self was aware that in n more presses of the shutter, I'll need to need to pay for more developing and more film.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

for me it is simple, the pronounced superiority of film in miniature (35mm) and medium format photography.
while i own and use a nikon df, it is used for location work only. this provides for me a series of locations wherein i will use my film cameras to make the final photograph. that would be up to 5x7, depending on the subject matter.

TheDman Loc: USA

nikon_jon wrote:

If you are just learning photography, film is good. The pressure of expense makes you think about each shot before it is taken. Greatly reduces 'spray and pray' approach.

Disagree. It unnecessarily elongates the learning curve because you don't get instant feedback.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

TheDman wrote:

Disagree. It unnecessarily elongates the learning curve because you don't get instant feedback.

instant feedback does not allow time for contemplation. and contemplation is the very foundation of photography or digital image making.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

nikon_jon wrote:

If you are just learning photography, film is good. The pressure of expense makes you think about each shot before it is taken. Greatly reduces 'spray and pray' approach.

Are you saying that students have NO SELF DISCIPLINE when confronted with endless possibility to make exposures???

As an instructor, I would confront that potential lack, head-on, with specific assignments designed to encourage the thought process. You DO NOT have to use film to do that.

whitewolfowner

rehess wrote:

Yes, I learned good deliberate habits using film when my subconscious self was aware that in n more presses of the shutter, I'll need to need to pay for more developing and more film.

Then your conclusion that digital is superior to slide film is inaccurate since you have transferred the film to the digital format.

wej

May depend on how it was digitized. Great quality scanner, but unless it is a serious drum scanner that cost more than we want to discuss. Other means to do potential PP could be using a great Macro 1:1 lens and a high MP Digital camera with a device that can set what ever light temp you would want to capture the original slide from it's origin. Also using a very stable platform to hold the image and camera steady and using a calibrated PC for color presentation and zoomed in focus to ensure the sharpest image possible.

I have seen many serious old Movies that were captured in 35mm and converted to Serious HD and each frame is a sight to behold using Extachrome. I guess it is all in the eyes of the beholder. Ever listen to a high quality of an LP on a great turntable and compare the same audio on a CD? The LP gives the depth of the sound you can" provide on the CD one would purchase. Just MHOP.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

whitewolfowner wrote:

Then your conclusion that digital is superior to slide film is inaccurate since you have transferred the film to the digital format.

No, at 9:21:52 I said

rehess wrote:

my parallel projector / computer tests convinced me that scanned images were at least as good as slide originals..

The first thing I did was to compare two set of pictures
(1) original slides
(2) a 3000x2000 scan of each of those slides
Every feature I identified in (1) was also in (2), so the digital format was a perfectly good representative of the slide

TheDman Loc: USA

wj cody wrote:

instant feedback does not allow time for contemplation. and contemplation is the very foundation of photography or digital image making.

There's nothing to contemplate without feedback. If you're trying to learn the effects of, say, aperture on DOF, waiting for your film to be developed isn't going to help you understand. Seeing your shots will.